Ive read a number of rhetoric filled, but ultimately poorly thought out proposals to solve the abortion debate simply by leaving it up to the states to decide. According to this fatally simplistic solution, states that want to ban abortion can do so, and women from those states who want to get one can simply travel to a state where it is legal and get the procedure. Sounds almost rational on the surface, but under this solution, states dont actually retain the right to protect unborn life. All they can do is make abortion more costly and inconvenient (prohibitively even for some), but at the end of the day they dont retain the ultimate right to protect unborn life.

States would only retain ultimate right to protect unborn life if they could prosecute residents who travel out of state to have an abortion.

By definition, in order for something to be a solution, it has to actually solve a problem. So if states can only ban abortion within their own borders but cannot prevent residents from getting one out of state, exactly what problem does this solution solve?

Sounds like another disingenuous pro-abortion argument. States can make their own laws on any number of subjects, regardless of whether other states agree. How about speed limits? Your argument also fails when applied at the Federal level: Should the U.S. decline to pass laws regarding child pornography because it can't enforce them in other countries?

Sounds like another disingenuous pro-abortion argument. States can make their own laws on any number of subjects, regardless of whether other states agree. How about speed limits? Your argument also fails when applied at the Federal level: Should the U.S. decline to pass laws regarding child pornography because it can't enforce them in other countries?

Click to expand...

In that case, allow me to put it another way. If we left abortion up to the states, how would the SC rule on a state law that allows them to prosecute someone for taking a fetus out of state to get it aborted? Do you think a state would retain the right to enforce such a law?

I understand what I'm about to say doesn't exactly jibe with the OP....but....

Don't you think that due to the very nature of the subject of abortion, that both sides come to a consensus? Like first trimester only or something......I mean, it's never going to satisfy the hard core on either side.....but, perhaps if a consensus could be reached on a National level as the minimum allowable timeframe, the States could adjust off of that.

States that don't want to allow the procedure, could find other ways to discourage the practice. Cost was already mentioned.....they could assign fees to the procedure to make it cost prohibitive, they could create red tape to make it more difficult....like mandatory counseling or something.

States that tend to fall into the "pro-choice" realm, could even expand upon the minimum.....offer the procedure free to people without means, etc....

Ive read a number of rhetoric filled, but ultimately poorly thought out proposals to solve the abortion debate simply by leaving it up to the states to decide. According to this fatally simplistic solution, states that want to ban abortion can do so, and women from those states who want to get one can simply travel to a state where it is legal and get the procedure. Sounds almost rational on the surface, but under this solution, states dont actually retain the right to protect unborn life. All they can do is make abortion more costly and inconvenient (prohibitively even for some), but at the end of the day they dont retain the ultimate right to protect unborn life.

States would only retain ultimate right to protect unborn life if they could prosecute residents who travel out of state to have an abortion.

By definition, in order for something to be a solution, it has to actually solve a problem. So if states can only ban abortion within their own borders but cannot prevent residents from getting one out of state, exactly what problem does this solution solve?

Click to expand...

Because it isnt about abortion, it never was. Its about expanding the authority of the state at the expense of individual liberty.

Whether one has his civil liberties isnt determined by his state of residence, nor is it determined by majority rule. A woman doesnt have a right to an abortion, she like all citizens has a right to privacy, and in the context of that right the state may not place an undue burden on her exercising that or any other fundamental right.

Thus the fact that a states rights solution would not indeed end abortion Nationwide is of no consequence to those supposedly opposed to the practice.

Duh, the issue at hand is whether these ridiculous SCOTUS decisions should be overturned and the matter of abortion returned to the States as prescribed in the Constitution. Simply quoting them is a transparently circular argument.

Sounds like another disingenuous pro-abortion argument. States can make their own laws on any number of subjects, regardless of whether other states agree. How about speed limits? Your argument also fails when applied at the Federal level: Should the U.S. decline to pass laws regarding child pornography because it can't enforce them in other countries?

Click to expand...

In that case, allow me to put it another way. If we left abortion up to the states, how would the SC rule on a state law that allows them to prosecute someone for taking a fetus out of state to get it aborted? Do you think a state would retain the right to enforce such a law?

Click to expand...

The states wouldnt be able to, as their sovergenity is limited by territory, not by the person occupying it (or another state's territory). Plus any violation of law between states is handled at the federal level (as is proper in the constitution).

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!